Training to failure vs. RIR, a new study

[Dugbet]

Part of the problem for me with going to failure too much is my strength is completely torched after I hit failure even waiting 3-4 minutes before the next set. So I'm strategic and limited in my use.

The point is that the more times you fail in an exercise, less series and volume you should program for that same exercise and muscle group.

 

[FK86]

I'm not sure why people think always leaving a rep or two in the tank means you aren't pushing yourself as hard as you can.

Let's go back to my last shoulder workout. For dumbbell side laterals, I was using the 60s, which are very heavy for me, and from the very first rep require intense effort to get the dumbbells up with good form and no cheating. Now, I didn't go to failure on every set. I did about 13 reps in the first set and 8 reps in the second, and in both sets I stopped when I knew my next rep or two would be pushing it and close to failure and breaking form. But those sets were still very intense sets.

Or let's go back to a chest workout I did a while back. I was doing incline barbell press, and I knew that I could get 315 for 8-10 reps if I went to failure, but that if I did I wouldn't be able to get it but a few times on the next set, and I wanted to build more volume into my workout. So I did a 5x5 at that weight. And the first rep in the first set was still a hard, heavy rep. Those sets were intense, and required me to really be in the zone and get aggressive and forceful under the weight.

Now, I'm not someone who is against going to failure. I think it's a tool we use, each of us according to our own genetics and circumstances, within our own micro and macro cycles, etc, but it just befuddles me when people dismiss sub-failure training as "not intense." Obviously, training without intensity won't do much good. But sub-failure training should be intense.

I never said non-failure training was bad or didn't require effort. It has it's place depending on the goal. Your 5x5 example is exactly the type of training I stated in my post that is an effective way of going about it. It's the guidelines that the Renaissance Periodization crew and the like recommend that is complicated, subjective, and possibly ineffective as a result.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

The point is that the more times you fail in an exercise, less series and volume you should program for that same exercise and muscle group.

Exactly. Intensity up, so volume is down.
That's why JP's 2 working sets work so well. 1 hard and heavy set to failure, lower the weight and then another set to failure but at a higher rep range. Then move on.

And that's why exercise order is such an important thing to. Benching to failure as your first exercise is a lot different than benching to failure as your 3rd. You cannot log both of those as the same thing.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

Great example in bold above. I do not have the answer, but it brings up a great question. For bodybuilding purposes (hypertrophy) would it be more ideal to hit 315x10 to failure and then hit 315x5 to failure and then 315x3 to failure for a toal of 18 reps. Or, do what you did and hit 315x5x5 for a total of 25 reps with none to failure???? This is the 1million dollar question. And would the difference be significant? If not significant, then obviously go with what you prefer....but what if it were significant one way or another?

The important factor in that is, what do you think drives hypertrophy more—volume or intensity? As of right now, it seems like we see a ton of examples that say BOTH do. But...what makes the workout more enjoyable for you personally. What keeps it fun and fresh.

 

[maldorf]

Some of us came up in the magazine era (70's - 90's) and followed our favorite BB stars routines. Perfect?? Hell no, but they worked.
These days its too many studies, to many experts, too many coaches. I still use the old routines and splits and maybe go to failure on like the last set of a given body-part almost every time.
(Or instinctively). So much conflicting info out there it can become exhausting to try and keep up with it, never mind the training, Im tired from reading it...

I agree, nothing is perfect. I used those workouts in the 80s myself. I pretty much always went to failure, or as close as you can solo, on every set. Looking back, I was over trained much of the time. I would have probably been better off doing failure on just the last set. I would do drop sets a lot too. After training for about 20 years, I would try to hold back more and not hit failure on every set but often found myself going to positive failure on every set because i was so used to doing it. It is hard to hold back.

 

[maldorf]

Exactly. Intensity up, so volume is down.
That's why JP's 2 working sets work so well. 1 hard and heavy set to failure, lower the weight and then another set to failure but at a higher rep range. Then move on.

And that's why exercise order is such an important thing to. Benching to failure as your first exercise is a lot different than benching to failure as your 3rd. You cannot log both of those as the same thing.

Great point. One way you can force yourself to do less intensity if to do the isolation exercises like leg extensions before you do the compound movements like squats. Pre-exhaust.

 

[xpoc]

Part of the problem for me with going to failure too much is my strength is completely torched after I hit failure even waiting 3-4 minutes before the next set. So I'm strategic and limited in my use.

YES, that is me. In an earlier post I commented in and example the guy hit 315x10 to failure then 315x5 to failure. Someone else responded it would more likely be 315x8 on the 2nd set. Not me! Once I hit failure...like real failure...I am literally lucky to get half that number on the next set. One example I have experienced was using a reverse pyramid (like Jordan Peters back off sets). I was DB pressing 120x10 to failure. Normal rest between sets. Then did 105x9 to failure. Normal rest and finally 85x8 to failure. And that 8th rep was ugly. That is a significant drop off each set. I don't know how these guys can do 120x10, 120x8, 120x7 if they really hit failure each time.

 

[Biggerp73]

YES, that is me. In an earlier post I commented in and example the guy hit 315x10 to failure then 315x5 to failure. Someone else responded it would more likely be 315x8 on the 2nd set. Not me! Once I hit failure...like real failure...I am literally lucky to get half that number on the next set. One example I have experienced was using a reverse pyramid (like Jordan Peters back off sets). I was DB pressing 120x10 to failure. Normal rest between sets. Then did 105x9 to failure. Normal rest and finally 85x8 to failure. And that 8th rep was ugly. That is a significant drop off each set. I don't know how these guys can do 120x10, 120x8, 120x7 if they really hit failure each time.

Yeah me too. And if I hit more than one or two sets to failure in a single workout, I would be weaker my next workout. I have to be very careful with how much failure I use. But I think maybe this has something to do with muscular conditioning. If you have been doing multiple sets to failure every workout for a long time, you are probably better at maintaining strength and recovery while going to failure. Back when I was a beginner, between 16-18 years old, I would do 3-4 sets, 3-4 exercises, for every body part, and they would ALL be to failure. I didn't know anything back then except I should train hard. And it worked well for me.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

YES, that is me. In an earlier post I commented in and example the guy hit 315x10 to failure then 315x5 to failure. Someone else responded it would more likely be 315x8 on the 2nd set. Not me! Once I hit failure...like real failure...I am literally lucky to get half that number on the next set. One example I have experienced was using a reverse pyramid (like Jordan Peters back off sets). I was DB pressing 120x10 to failure. Normal rest between sets. Then did 105x9 to failure. Normal rest and finally 85x8 to failure. And that 8th rep was ugly. That is a significant drop off each set. I don't know how these guys can do 120x10, 120x8, 120x7 if they really hit failure each time.

You answered your own question. And I kind of had to get out of that mindset. Because really, is there a need to hit failure at the same weight for a second time? IMO, no. I'm peaking for 1 set at a certain weight...then I am peaking at another set (diff rep range) at another lower weight. Then I'm done.

And realistically, guys are not hitting 120x10, 8, 7. I used to think the same thing when doing 5x5 programs. I wanted my 1st 5 to be to failure and could not for the life of me understand how they were hitting 5 reps at failure if they weren't lowering the weight. Personally, I've lost the idea of hitting failure at the same weight multiple times. Your body is accumulating fatigue after every failure set, so you're going to have to lower reps or weight significantly. The things i believed when I was 22 are so different than the things I believe now.

 

[madg]

I use same weight each set while lowering rest periods

First sets are easy and by the end it gets very tough usually failure on last set

Example 100 kg bench x 5 x 12

Start 1 min rest and work down to 30 sec

I do like this and never injury going on 16 years continous training

 

[madg]

I use same weight each set while lowering rest periods

First sets are easy and by the end it gets very tough usually failure on last set

Example 100 kg bench x 5 x 12

Start 1 min rest and work down to 30 sec

I do like this and never injury going on 16 years continous training

When can do 5x12 with 30 sec rest up weight a little and start back up from 1 min working down to 30 secs

 

[headtrainer]

Going to failure on smaller body parts like arms, chest, and shoulders for moderate volume is not that fatiguing. But, training to failure on compound leg movements ( e.g., squats, deadlifts, and leg presses) can rapidly overtrain your CNS when moderate volume—14-20 work sets per body part is performed weekly.

 

[brutus69]

what about so-called effective reps? if reps are only effective from 3 rir to 0, then why even do sets higher than 8 reps?
15 rep set, last 3-4 effective.
6 rep set, yr already close to failure right away, so what, 5 of them are effective in my opinion. with no fatigue or needless worthless volume.
4 rep set, every one is effective right away, hence the max-ot training and the low rep/volume blood and guts.
as far as "pump" goes, i'd have an inch bigger arm from blood flow and stretch marks galore when i started max-ot..4-6 reps. and a big ol pump.

 

[KillerStack]

And realistically, guys are not hitting 120x10, 8, 7. I used to think the same thing when doing 5x5 programs. I wanted my 1st 5 to be to failure and could not for the life of me understand how they were hitting 5 reps at failure if they weren't lowering the weight. Personally, I've lost the idea of hitting failure at the same weight multiple times. Your body is accumulating fatigue after every failure set, so you're going to have to lower reps or weight significantly. The things i believed when I was 22 are so different than the things I believe now.

This is what I always thought was strange with rest-pause sets or your 5x5 example.
In the OP the example was 22 dips too failure, rest 20 seconds, do 9 more. Excuse me? If I went to failure I wouldn't get a single rep after 20 seconds, not one.
On a hypothetical 5×5 example, say a squat, if I did 5 reps to failure first set and rested 4 minutes chances are I couldn't even get one rep on the second set. Would need about 15 minutes break, then I might get 3 or 4 with the same weight, but never 5.
So these examples has me scratching my head, and I haven't seen that others are much different, maybe absolute beginners.

 

[FK86]

This is what I always thought was strange with rest-pause sets or your 5x5 example.
In the OP the example was 22 dips too failure, rest 20 seconds, do 9 more. Excuse me? If I went to failure I wouldn't get a single rep after 20 seconds, not one.
On a hypothetical 5×5 example, say a squat, if I did 5 reps to failure first set and rested 4 minutes chances are I couldn't even get one rep on the second set. Would need about 15 minutes break, then I might get 3 or 4 with the same weight, but never 5.
So these examples has me scratching my head, and I haven't seen that others are much different, maybe absolute beginners.

In the case of the 5x5, you're not supposed to hit failure on the first set.

As for the rest-pause, I found I needed the reps to be higher in order to even utilize the technique. At least 8 or more. If I did 6 and rested 20 seconds, I wouldn't get anymore. But as the reps went up it was more manageable. My RP sets typically looked like this:

8 + 2 + 1 = 11

10 + 3 + 2 = 15

15 + 4 + 3 = 22

As the initial reps increased, so did the subsequent ones. You'd think it would be the opposite with more fatigue and lactic acid accumulated, but it flushes out quite rapidly and I guess the muscle and CNS aren't as fried from starting with something like 5 reps.

 

[maldorf]

This is what I always thought was strange with rest-pause sets or your 5x5 example.
In the OP the example was 22 dips too failure, rest 20 seconds, do 9 more. Excuse me? If I went to failure I wouldn't get a single rep after 20 seconds, not one.
On a hypothetical 5×5 example, say a squat, if I did 5 reps to failure first set and rested 4 minutes chances are I couldn't even get one rep on the second set. Would need about 15 minutes break, then I might get 3 or 4 with the same weight, but never 5.
So these examples has me scratching my head, and I haven't seen that others are much different, maybe absolute beginners.

I used to be able to do rest pause training doing squats. Id have say 455 lbs on the bar and get out 8 or 9 reps to "failure", training alone. Rack the weight and sit down, rest about 1 minute. Get back up and I could usually do a double the first time. Rest again and then its only 1 rep each time, after 1 minute rest. Risky doing it, but I did sometimes. With higher reps I would just pause at the top of the squat and hold the weight for about 30 seconds after failure and then do more reps.

 

[maldorf]

In the case of the 5x5, you're not supposed to hit failure on the first set.

As for the rest-pause, I found I needed the reps to be higher in order to even utilize the technique. At least 8 or more. If I did 6 and rested 20 seconds, I wouldn't get anymore. But as the reps went up it was more manageable. My RP sets typically looked like this:

8 + 2 + 1 = 11

10 + 3 + 2 = 15

15 + 4 + 3 = 22

As the initial reps increased, so did the subsequent ones. You'd think it would be the opposite with more fatigue and lactic acid accumulated, but it flushes out quite rapidly and I guess the muscle and CNS aren't as fried from starting with something like 5 reps.

Yeah, I did 5x5 programs off and on and would put on a lot of strength doing it. It was a Russian program that Fred Hatfield had in Muscle and Fitness magazine. The first 2 sets of 5 reps was real easy. By the last set it was really hard to get that last 5th rep, and sometimes I would fail and only get 4.

 

[KillerStack]

In the case of the 5x5, you're not supposed to hit failure on the first set.

As for the rest-pause, I found I needed the reps to be higher in order to even utilize the technique. At least 8 or more. If I did 6 and rested 20 seconds, I wouldn't get anymore. But as the reps went up it was more manageable. My RP sets typically looked like this:

8 + 2 + 1 = 11

10 + 3 + 2 = 15

15 + 4 + 3 = 22

As the initial reps increased, so did the subsequent ones. You'd think it would be the opposite with more fatigue and lactic acid accumulated, but it flushes out quite rapidly and I guess the muscle and CNS aren't as fried from starting with something like 5 reps.

I get you point about higher reps allowing for more reps on subsequent sets. Can be true sometimes on some exercises.

Regarding CNS fatigue, this scientist called Chris Beardsley has some fascinating stuff on IG and on his blog.
Basically, higher reps cause the most CNS fatigue and takes a long time to recover from. Really low reps allow for quick recovery and shorter rest intervals between workouts. It has to do with some metabolite accumulation causing CNS fatigue.

 

[alfresco]

This is what I always thought was strange with rest-pause sets or your 5x5 example.
In the OP the example was 22 dips too failure, rest 20 seconds, do 9 more. Excuse me? If I went to failure I wouldn't get a single rep after 20 seconds, not one.
On a hypothetical 5×5 example, say a squat, if I did 5 reps to failure first set and rested 4 minutes chances are I couldn't even get one rep on the second set. Would need about 15 minutes break, then I might get 3 or 4 with the same weight, but never 5.
So these examples has me scratching my head, and I haven't seen that others are much different, maybe absolute beginners.

I have trained my wife, supervised her workouts on and off for over 20 years.
And while it has been a few years since I have done so (she does not enjoy weight
training, can't stand it actually), she exhibited something that I think is quite rare.

I never had her do more than 3 sets to failure, unusually 2 sets, and sometimes
only 1 but she actually gets stronger with each and every set. That's right; stronger
the second set, and stronger yet again the third and final set. And that is after a
sufficient warm-up. I have never tested her limits but she is, by this point so bored
I doubt it would have much meaningful relevance.

I used to accuse her of 'sandbagging' but in reality she is just a freak in this respect.

Maybe she was not really properly warmed up (whatever that means) and with
each set she becomes more so, I don't know, but I have never seen anything like it.

 

[maldorf]

I have trained my wife, supervised her workouts on and off for over 20 years.
And while it has been a few years since I have done so (she does not enjoy weight
training, can't stand it actually), she exhibited something that I think is quite rare.

I never had her do more than 3 sets to failure, unusually 2 sets, and sometimes
only 1 but she actually gets stronger with each and every set. That's right; stronger
the second set, and stronger yet again the third and final set. And that is after a
sufficient warm-up. I have never tested her limits but she is, by this point so bored
I doubt it would have much meaningful relevance.

I used to accuse her of 'sandbagging' but in reality she is just a freak in this respect.

Maybe she was not really properly warmed up (whatever that means) and with
each set she becomes more so, I don't know, but I have never seen anything like it.

I used to feel like my second set was my strongest, so I had some of that going on. I think it is a matter of getting warmed up.